Mcewen presentation


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mcewen presentation

  1. 1. Lindsay McEwen LIS401 Research Paper Presentation 29 July 2013
  2. 2. Education/increased literacy Recreation Rehabilitation Therapeutic purposes Vocational/employment after release
  3. 3.  People in state and federal prison in the US: 1.6 million*  Percent of incarcerated people with less than a high school education: 23% *as of December 31, 2012
  4. 4. Ex Parte Hull (1940) Younger v. Gilmore (1971) Bounds v. Smith (1977) Lewis v. Casey (1996) The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
  5. 5. This 1940 Supreme Court case ruled that stated may not block prisoners rights to apply to a federal court a writ of habeas corpus. This guaranteed prisoners the right to appear in front of the court
  6. 6. Supreme Court ruled that prisoners must be supplied with legal materials Unclear in its definitions of what prisoners needed
  7. 7. Added the term “meaningful access to the courts” to the prisoners rights that existed
  8. 8. Decision stated that prisoners are not necessarily guaranteed access to a law library
  9. 9. In 1995, courts ruled to limit prisoners ability to file federal suits from within prison Done in an effort to curb frivolous lawsuits Seen by many as denying prisoners their constitutional rights to access the court
  10. 10. ALA Document, 2010 “asserts a compelling public interest in the preservation of intellectual freedom for individuals of any age held in jails, prisons, detention facilities, juvenile facilities, immigration facilities, prison work camps and segregated units within any facility”
  11. 11. LIS professional are held to a code of ethics that requires them to provide equal access to all patrons, regardless of who they are. Reading lists of prisoners should be kept confidential
  12. 12. Would I be able to serve violent criminals as my patrons, and respect their privacy rights? What is the therapeutic value of group reading programs? How can prison libraries increase awareness of their services?
  13. 13. Should people be judged in court based on books that they have read in the past? Should they be made public record?
  14. 14.    American Library Association. ALA, 2013. Web. 29 July 2013.   Billington, Josie. “Reading for Life: Prison Reading Groups in Practice and Theory”. Critical Survey. Vol. 23 Issue 3 (2011): 67- 85. Web. 29 July 2013.   Bureau of Justice Statistics. Office of Justice Programs, 2013. Web. 29 July 2013.   Chen, Cindy. “The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Doing Away with More than  Crunchy Peanut Butter”. St. John’s Law Review. Vol. 78.1 (2004): 203-231. Web. 29 July 2013.   Conrad, Suzanna. “Collection Development and Circulation Policies in Prison Libraries: An Exploratory Survey of Librarians in U.S. Correctional Institutions”. Library Quarterly.Vol 82.4 (2012): 407-427. Web. 29 July 2013.   Glaberston, William. “Prison Books Bring Plot Twist to Cheshire Killings”. The New York Times 21 July 2010: Web. 29 July 2013.   “Prisoners’ Rights to Read, An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights”. Intellectual Freedom Manual. ALA Council. Web. 29 July 2013.   Rubin, Richard E. Foundations of Library and Infromation Science. New York:Neal- Schuman Publishers, 2010. Print.   Sabath, Michael J. and William Payne. “U.S. Prison Strategies for Complying With Constitutional Rights”. The Prison Journal. Vol. 92.1 (2012):45-62. Web. 29 July 2013.   Wilhelmus, David W. “A New Emphasis for Correctional Facilities Libraries”. Journal of Academic Librarianship. Vol. 25.2 (1999): 114. Web. 29 July 2013. 